"Googling can tell you billions of facts, and adaptive software can coach you to shore up your gaps in algebraic skills, but it is in conversation and community that we wrestle with the real questions of humanity," wrote Daniel Scoggin, co-founder of the GreatHearts classical charter school network.

Scoggin's charter network aims to "cultivate the hearts and minds of students" through a classical, liberal arts curriculum. GreatHearts isn't against the use of technology, Scoggin wrote, but they "believe in putting reflection and conversation first." Everyday, students engage in a two-hour Socratic discussion on literature, philosophy, or history.

Technology enriches lessons for Scoggin's students when they research in preparation for a seminar or digitally share their writing. Students in science classes have watched hi-def videos of volcanic eruptions and have seen cell structure under a microscope at high resolution, technologically-enhanced experiences that bring them "closer to the mystery and beauty of reality," he wrote.

But Scoggin believes that the challenging conversations at the core of his curriculum—about the meaning of humanity, justice, and duty to community—need to happen face-to-face, without screens. These in-person debates foster critical thinking and push students to reconsider their assumptions, requiring nuance and judgment that can be lost in virtual interactions, he wrote.

Tom Vander Ark, the CEO of learning advisory firm Getting Smart, offered a counterpoint. He agrees that indiscriminate use of screens isn't an educational strategy, but he thinks that deep inquiry, debate, and critical thought can also take place in a digital space. Vander Ark is also a blogger for Education Week at Vander Ark on Innovation.

The push to get ed tech into schools over the past 25 years coincided with, and eventually fueled, the movement for standards-based accountability, Vander Ark writes. This movement "bred a narrow focus on testing and compliance, often driving out creativity and collaboration rather than encouraging them," he argues. As a result, tech has too often been used for information consumption and rote skills tests—not sparking student innovation.

Tech is a tool, Vander Ark argues—not inherently good or bad—and only valuable if there's a motivating pedagogical strategy behind its use. It can, he wrote, open more pathways to "create and invent, launch social movements, and even contribute to solving global problems."

He cites examples of personalized learning programs that integrate project-based learning, like New Tech Network, and points out that tech offers unique access to learning coding and data analysis, skills that are increasingly valuable in college and the workforce.

Categories:

Tags:

Notice: We recently upgraded our comments. (Learn more here.) If you are logged in as a subscriber or registered user and already have a Display Name on edweek.org, you can post comments. If you do not already have a Display Name, please create one here.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.